Trance 29 or Evil The Following MB

I recently bought a Trance 29 Advanced 1 but am going to sell it because the medium is too small for me. I'm either going to get the same bike in large, or possibly get the Following MB instead. The Trance is cheaper, comes with carbons rims (in my budget range) and is lighter. The Following MB looks a lot nicer, has great reviews, but has some slightly outdated geometry with a slack seat tube angle, and 51 degree fork offset compared to the Trance's 44mm offset.

My usual trails are a lot of ups and downs with slow technical sections. I've never tried a Following MB, but the Trance 29 feels pretty good, just short feeling in the medium size I ordered (I'm 5'11" with 32" inseam). The 440mm reach seemed good compared to my previous large sized bike, but I think the short offset makes a longer reach necessary to not feel weird and cramped.

Instead of just buying the Trance again, I figured I should do my research better this time! Unfortunately I don't live somewhere where demos are available.

Has anyone tried both bikes, and how does the difference in fork offset affect handling? Thanks.

Fork offest:
From Pinkbike
Of course, we can't talk about geometry without talking about fork offset. 51mm used to be the standard amount of fork offset for 29ers, but that's changed over the last year or two, and looking ahead I'd expect most new 29er to have forks with 44 or 46mm of offset. Does it make a huge difference out on the trail? Honestly, I'd say that there's a little more hype surrounding this topic than there needs to be Ė the difference in handling isn't drastic, especially with slacker head angles, but companies don't want to look like they're behind the times, so reduced offset will become the new norm.

I put a longer stem on it and slid the seat back a bit. Will probably continue to use it and then buy a new frameset when they are available. I was thinking large, but my bikeshop was 100% sure I was a medium. Decided based on comparing to Trance 27.5s they had in stock and let me try. Even though it's bigger in numbers, the Trance 29 feels kinda short, and I think it's because of the fork offset maybe. Asking around on forums, not a single person my height is riding a medium!

Buy what you can demo one way or another---I mean you have already made one mistake try not to compound it. Beyond that I am seeing this fork offset chatter being over blown----and as usual folks are getting religion about it but it seems a minor and maybe not desirable change depending on the bike---Knolly is shipping 44 but recommend 51---they say they are doing 44 only because they are asked for it----for sure new bikes will be more 44 but is it really better or is it marketing again---time will tell

I'm the same size as you and it's a rare day that I feel better on a "medium" frame than a large. Sure, for a few minutes during a descent it doesn't matter, but on the rest of the ride, I'm cramped and these days the large frames do not give up anything measurable in terms of DH performance, unlike the old days when they had goofy high top-tubes and other features that kept you from getting as aggressive. Obviously, you should look at the geometry numbers more than just the "size description", but the old days where you "always downsize" are long gone IME, with modern short stems and options that old way of thinking doesn't apply and leads to being unhappy more of the time on the bike.

"It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

I went back in and talked about it with them. The owner wants to go riding around with me and watch me on the bike and see if they can make any adjustments and then take it from there. I asked if there was anything they could do to get me a larger frame and they unfortunately not since I rode it off-road already.

When I was getting the bike, I was sure from message boards that large was the right size. The owner said I was 100% a large since I was about his height and he rides a large. He put me on some Trance 27.5s and in the parking lot, the medium did feel better to me (maybe also because he was pushing for medium). But when the 29 came in and I rode it on the trails, the comfort of the upright position of the medium felt cramped when I needed to move around in the bike in technical sections. Also, on downhills the wheel feels kind of underneath me if that makes sense.

Iím coming from a large 2004 SantaCruz Heckler which has 26 inch wheels and old school geometry with about < 430mm reach (but also a 75mm stem). I convinced myself of the medium by comparing reaches to the medium trance with a 440mm reach, but mistakingly probably didnít take the stem lengths and seat tube angles into account. Anyways, Iíll see if the shop can either give me a discount on a new frame set, or at least not charge any labor to swap parts out.

Yeah, they'll have margin in the frameset - they should be getting you a frame at/near cost if they're not willing to help you out of the incorrect size. No skin off their back other than not making money twice.

To your original post, the Following is a much more active/planted bike. If you liked the playfulness of the Trance I don't think you'd like the Following. Their kinematics are very different even if other attributes are the same.

On offset - while there's likely a lot of marketing talk, and the differences are subtle, the differences are also real. Giant tested numerous offsets with DVO before settling on 44. Will it ride fine with a 51? Sure. But the package is optimized for 44 - take that for what you will.

Also note between reviews and test rides - the 0 ships with a 32T ring while the lower specs get a 30T. While this might seem like a trivial difference it actually has a HUGE effect on anti-sag (and subsequently pedal kickback). It's highly probable that the custom tuning in the Topaz 2 mixed with lower AS and kickback from the 32T is yielding the strong descending chops and bottomless feel that is being raved about. Smaller ringed bikes are going to feel like they're getting hung up a bit and riding harsher in chop.
For perspective the difference is going from 98-108% @ 30% sag to 118-114%. NB, that's not a typo, the AS is inverted and much flatter with the smaller front cog.

Yeah, they'll have margin in the frameset - they should be getting you a frame at/near cost if they're not willing to help you out of the incorrect size. No skin off their back other than not making money twice.

To your original post, the Following is a much more active/planted bike. If you liked the playfulness of the Trance I don't think you'd like the Following. Their kinematics are very different even if other attributes are the same.

On offset - while there's likely a lot of marketing talk, and the differences are subtle, the differences are also real. Giant tested numerous offsets with DVO before settling on 44. Will it ride fine with a 51? Sure. But the package is optimized for 44 - take that for what you will.

Also note between reviews and test rides - the 0 ships with a 32T ring while the lower specs get a 30T. While this might seem like a trivial difference it actually has a HUGE effect on anti-sag (and subsequently pedal kickback). It's highly probable that the custom tuning in the Topaz 2 mixed with lower AS and kickback from the 32T is yielding the strong descending chops and bottomless feel that is being raved about. Smaller ringed bikes are going to feel like they're getting hung up a bit and riding harsher in chop.
For perspective the difference is going from 98-108% @ 30% sag to 118-114%. NB, that's not a typo, the AS is inverted and much flatter with the smaller front cog.

Piggy backing on what Nurse Ben said about fork offset, I agree. It's hard to articulate the difference and it is on the suble side, but there is a noticeable difference to me. I'd also say contrary to that Pinkbike blurb the affect is more noticeable with slack ht/front center, not less.

I'd say take your time and buy what you want. Evils are very unique riding bikes imo. There's a reason why there's so much hype around the following. One could argue it gave birth to all these awesome 29'rs on the market now. If you don't have monster climbs stį may not be as big of a deal.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

I'm planning to try a 34, 32, and 30 - just because I like to fiddle we have a lot of punchy terrain where I live, not a lot of sustained ups or downs, so higher AS values may be advantageous. It's all a balancing act, but know that you can have a pretty big impact on modifying the bike to suit your terrain and style. If the Topaz is running a little more baseline compression damping, tying it to a flat / higher AS curve could yield an awesome XXC brawler. But if you're after as much descending capability as the 115mm can muster, going 32+ would be advised.

Well, I climb a lot of steep mountains and I run a 26t with an 11-46, just canít jmagine going up on the chainring size as it would mean more walking; Iíd rather have a high AS than walk up a hill

Not to mention, do we really care that much about pedaling induced AS when weíre climbing? I typically coast or at least minimize pedaling on the down cuz the pedals get in the way if I try to pedal while jumping

Seriously, if AS is that bad Iíd either pick a different bike/suspension or flip the lock out lever.

PS: screw that dealer and his ďletís see if we can make it fit. You are a large, thereís no question, so donít give in to the dealer. Iíd ask for a large frameset at cost; they already made their money off you.

I'm planning to try a 34, 32, and 30 - just because I like to fiddle we have a lot of punchy terrain where I live, not a lot of sustained ups or downs, so higher AS values may be advantageous. It's all a balancing act, but know that you can have a pretty big impact on modifying the bike to suit your terrain and style. If the Topaz is running a little more baseline compression damping, tying it to a flat / higher AS curve could yield an awesome XXC brawler. But if you're after as much descending capability as the 115mm can muster, going 32+ would be advised.

Probably no need to change chain length when adjusting the front chainring?

The concern about excessive AS isn't about AS itself, but rather it's correlary - pedal kickback. As anti - squat increases, so does pedal kickback. When you're coasting with weight on the pedals, that pedal pressure is resisting the suspension's movement. This comes across as the bike feeling like it gets hung up, especially on square edge bumps that require more travel and less roll over.

Anti - squat and chainring size certainly aren't linear either, it all depends on pivot placement. It just so happens on the Trance there's a major inflection point between 34-30. I haven't run the numbers beyond a 30, as we don't have climbs big enough to warrant lighter gearing here.

If you are coasting, with the pedals at 3 o'clock/9 o'clock I don't understand how chainring size can affect AS.

I don't believe it has any affect. The freewheel feature in the hub allows the chain to "grow" as the suspension cycles as long as you aren't transmitting power. Once you begin to pedal, you would begin to feel kick back as the growing chain fights your pedal stroke that has engaged the hub.

After spending some time on the Following MB while my Pro 29 0 was on order, I don't think the Following was any more "active/planted" then the Pro 29er. Actually, I thought the Pro 29 1 with DPX2 descended better than the Following.

Regarding, 32T vs 30T and descending ability, for my body weight (140), I actually descend better through the chunk on the Pro 1 with 30T and DPX2 compared to my Pro 0 with 32T and DVO with no volume spacers. The Pro 1 feels more plush and tracks better through the chunk than my Pro 0 to me :-(

Originally Posted by InVeloVeritas

Yeah, they'll have margin in the frameset - they should be getting you a frame at/near cost if they're not willing to help you out of the incorrect size. No skin off their back other than not making money twice.

To your original post, the Following is a much more active/planted bike. If you liked the playfulness of the Trance I don't think you'd like the Following. Their kinematics are very different even if other attributes are the same.

On offset - while there's likely a lot of marketing talk, and the differences are subtle, the differences are also real. Giant tested numerous offsets with DVO before settling on 44. Will it ride fine with a 51? Sure. But the package is optimized for 44 - take that for what you will.

Also note between reviews and test rides - the 0 ships with a 32T ring while the lower specs get a 30T. While this might seem like a trivial difference it actually has a HUGE effect on anti-sag (and subsequently pedal kickback). It's highly probable that the custom tuning in the Topaz 2 mixed with lower AS and kickback from the 32T is yielding the strong descending chops and bottomless feel that is being raved about. Smaller ringed bikes are going to feel like they're getting hung up a bit and riding harsher in chop.
For perspective the difference is going from 98-108% @ 30% sag to 118-114%. NB, that's not a typo, the AS is inverted and much flatter with the smaller front cog.

After spending some time on the Following MB while my Pro 29 0 was on order, I don't think the Following was any more "active/planted" then the Pro 29er. Actually, I thought the Pro 29 1 with DPX2 descended better than the Following.

Regarding, 32T vs 30T and descending ability, for my body weight (140), I actually descend better through the chunk on the Pro 1 with 30T and DPX2 compared to my Pro 0 with 32T and DVO with no volume spacers. The Pro 1 feels more plush and tracks better through the chunk than my Pro 0 to me :-(

I think that highlights what I suspect about the Topaz - that it has a stiffer baseline compression tune. This allows the bike to behave better with lower anti-sag under peddling. It should allow the bike to be supportive while having less kickback. But, if that base line is too high for your weight or riding style, it's going to come across as harsh.
Relying too much on AS is suboptimal, but so is relying on LSC - it's a set of balances and compromises. Unfortunately if you land beyond the scope of the available adjustments, it's not going to feel as good as a spec that allows you to land within them. There's something to be said for having size specific damper tunes - I thought Giant may have been doing that, but maybe not. It's remarkable that they have such significant changes between specs - the Pro 0/1/2 are all going to feel very different from each other. Usually you just see the same tune with a minor spec level difference in the shock - but to go from inline to piggy back to different brand of piggyback... kind of nuts!

After spending some time on the Following MB while my Pro 29 0 was on order, I don't think the Following was any more "active/planted" then the Pro 29er. Actually, I thought the Pro 29 1 with DPX2 descended better than the Following.

Regarding, 32T vs 30T and descending ability, for my body weight (140), I actually descend better through the chunk on the Pro 1 with 30T and DPX2 compared to my Pro 0 with 32T and DVO with no volume spacers. The Pro 1 feels more plush and tracks better through the chunk than my Pro 0 to me :-(

How does the Trance feels in tight, twisty, flat terrain?
Can you compare it to an Anthem 29 or 27.5?

Yes, the DVO definitely has a stiffer tune than the Fox DPX2. I also thought DVO was doing size specific tunes for Giant... one for the "larger" sizes and one for the "smaller" sizes. After numerous conversations with DVO, they now recommend that I send in the Topaz for a "lighter tune" for my weight... I just don't know if I want to go that far.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by InVeloVeritas

I think that highlights what I suspect about the Topaz - that it has a stiffer baseline compression tune. This allows the bike to behave better with lower anti-sag under peddling. It should allow the bike to be supportive while having less kickback. But, if that base line is too high for your weight or riding style, it's going to come across as harsh.
Relying too much on AS is suboptimal, but so is relying on LSC - it's a set of balances and compromises. Unfortunately if you land beyond the scope of the available adjustments, it's not going to feel as good as a spec that allows you to land within them. There's something to be said for having size specific damper tunes - I thought Giant may have been doing that, but maybe not. It's remarkable that they have such significant changes between specs - the Pro 0/1/2 are all going to feel very different from each other. Usually you just see the same tune with a minor spec level difference in the shock - but to go from inline to piggy back to different brand of piggyback... kind of nuts!

If you are coasting, with the pedals at 3 o'clock/9 o'clock I don't understand how chainring size can affect AS.

The size of the chainring changes the angle of the chain relative to the linkage, and the moment arm to the main pivot/IC. When you're coasting, you're still effectively pedaling because some or all of your body weight is resisting the pedals spinning backward as you hit a bump. If you're prone to descending with your feet of the pedals, then there's no effect

Yes, the DVO definitely has a stiffer tune than the Fox DPX2. I also thought DVO was doing size specific tunes for Giant... one for the "larger" sizes and one for the "smaller" sizes. After numerous conversations with DVO, they now recommend that I send in the Topaz for a "lighter tune" for my weight... I just don't know if I want to go that far.

Thanks!

I thought that too from the marketing brief - I mean, if you want the *best* feeling bike, having a shock that's custom tuned to the platform, your weight, and riding style is going to be king. Personally, I would have no hesitation sending the shock to them to tune given your feedback. There's no way it's something intrinsic to the Topaz that makes it 'worse' than the DPX2 - rather, that the tune Giant settled on for the DPX2 is softer than the tune in the stock Topaz, and that works better for you. But, at the same time, if you're totally happy with the Fox - there's not really anything left to be gained...

How does the Trance feels in tight, twisty, flat terrain?
Can you compare it to an Anthem 29 or 27.5?

Thanks!

From a geometry perspective or as a platform? I didn't like the Anthem 29, but not on account of the handling per se, but the fact that it relied on the lockout for peddling efficiency. I'm not down with flicking switches on and off all the time, and running enough LSC to leave the lockout off ends up feeling sketch everywhere else. But horses for courses - it was designed for going uphill quickly and downhill as well as the compromises allow.
That said, I also wanted a bike with a bit more party and the slacker geometry lends itself to that.

From a geometry perspective or as a platform? I didn't like the Anthem 29, but not on account of the handling per se, but the fact that it relied on the lockout for peddling efficiency. I'm not down with flicking switches on and off all the time, and running enough LSC to leave the lockout off ends up feeling sketch everywhere else. But horses for courses - it was designed for going uphill quickly and downhill as well as the compromises allow.
That said, I also wanted a bike with a bit more party and the slacker geometry lends itself to that.

As a platform... as in how easy (or how fast, should I say?) is in that sort of terrain. Making a bike that rails on long open turns is somewhat easy... making one that is good in the tight is just as easy. Making a bike that rides well on both, that's a challenge!

I loved my Anthem 27.5. I like my Transition Scout but it's not the best pedaling and on the heavy side of things. These are bikes that ride well on both terrains. It's only on the steep downhills that they start coming short with the Scout being the best of those two.

I had a '14 Trance too that I did not gel well with. Nice bike but hard to get it to turn, and the mid-stroke was rather weak.

I like the numbers of the new Trance but I don't want to lose the agility of the Scout/Anthem have.

My bike has all the "older" now standards (27.5, non boost, etc.). Hence my interest on jumping on a short travel trail bike. I'd prefer 27.5 but I guess I can live with a 29'er.

The size of the chainring changes the angle of the chain relative to the linkage, and the moment arm to the main pivot/IC. When you're coasting, you're still effectively pedaling because some or all of your body weight is resisting the pedals spinning backward as you hit a bump. If you're prone to descending with your feet of the pedals, then there's no effect

Well, I climb a lot of steep mountains and I run a 26t with an 11-46, just canít jmagine going up on the chainring size as it would mean more walking; Iíd rather have a high AS than walk up a hill

Not to mention, do we really care that much about pedaling induced AS when weíre climbing? I typically coast or at least minimize pedaling on the down cuz the pedals get in the way if I try to pedal while jumping

Seriously, if AS is that bad Iíd either pick a different bike/suspension or flip the lock out lever.

PS: screw that dealer and his ďletís see if we can make it fit. You are a large, thereís no question, so donít give in to the dealer. Iíd ask for a large frameset at cost; they already made their money off you.

After posting about frame sizes on one of Clint Gibbs videos today, I opened the flood gates of people telling me my bike shop screwed me with a medium sized frame. I went back to the bike shop today and they got out the plumb bob to try and show me why the frame fits, and that I look in a perfect position while riding it. They flipped the seat mount to make it off set to get more back movement on the seat, and rolled the handlebars forward to increase the reach. I feel bad because the guys seem super nice, but I can't tell if they're just screwing me and don't want to take a loss by getting me the correct frame size. I measured myself on a medical scale at work and I'm 5' 11.5" to be exact, just .5" under 6'. I've been in twice to talk to them about a larger frame size, and they just assure me I'm a medium each time and kinda act insulted if I question them. Based on your user name, I'm assuming you are a nurse? I'm a medical student, and the metaphor the guy used when I said I think I need a larger frame size (maybe not assertive enough) is that customers shouldn't try to fit themselves online like patients trying to diagnose themselves from Dr. Google. They should trust the expert....meanwhile I went to other bikes shops nearby out of curiosity and they wouldn't even sell me the medium Trance 29er they had in stock because they said it was too small for me.

After posting about frame sizes on one of Clint Gibbs videos today, I opened the flood gates of people telling me my bike shop screwed me with a medium sized frame. I went back to the bike shop today and they got out the plumb bob to try and show me why the frame fits, and that I look in a perfect position while riding it. They flipped the seat mount to make it off set to get more back movement on the seat, and rolled the handlebars forward to increase the reach. I feel bad because the guys seem super nice, but I can't tell if they're just screwing me and don't want to take a loss by getting me the correct frame size. I measured myself on a medical scale at work and I'm 5' 11.5" to be exact, just .5" under 6'. I've been in twice to talk to them about a larger frame size, and they just assure me I'm a medium each time and kinda act insulted if I question them. Based on your user name, I'm assuming you are a nurse? I'm a medical student, and the metaphor the guy used when I said I think I need a larger frame size (maybe not assertive enough) is that customers shouldn't try to fit themselves online like patients trying to diagnose themselves from Dr. Google. They should trust the expert....meanwhile I went to other bikes shops nearby out of curiosity and they wouldn't even sell me the medium Trance 29er they had in stock because they said it was too small for me.

The day a couple guys in a bike shop know me and my riding better than me, well, Iíll probably be ready for a pine box

There are a few shop guys I listen too, Evan Plews, Mike Curiak, but for the most part I know what I like and I know what works for me.

Working in a bike shop does not make anyone an ďexpertĒ. What makes someone an expert is having professional training, years building bikes, and the ability to listen. The shop 100% screwed up sizing you with a medium, a 442mm reach is ridiculously short for some 6í tall.

For perspective: I ride a GG Xmedium Smash, medium ht/st and large tt/dt, it has a reach of 490mm, I run a 35mm stem, my seat is centered, 170mm dropper with 20mm showing, ~25mm of spaces under a low rise bar cut to 750mm. The fit is perfect. If Iíd gotten the medium frame, the reach would have been 465mm, which would have required a 60mm stem to fit similar to the Xmedium.

Back a few years ago I followed the ďshort is agileĒ mantra, which led to me riding bikes with long stems and lots of exposed seat post. Finally I got a clue and started sizing up.

If you were sizing for a dj or bmx, then sure, small makes sense, but youíre sizing for a trail bike, you need some reach, nothing less than 460mm at your height; even 460 is short in my book.

Iím a nurse practitioner, psychiatry is my specialty.

Enjoy med school, choose a specialty that makes you smile

Originally Posted by DocFPV

After posting about frame sizes on one of Clint Gibbs videos today, I opened the flood gates of people telling me my bike shop screwed me with a medium sized frame. I went back to the bike shop today and they got out the plumb bob to try and show me why the frame fits, and that I look in a perfect position while riding it. They flipped the seat mount to make it off set to get more back movement on the seat, and rolled the handlebars forward to increase the reach. I feel bad because the guys seem super nice, but I can't tell if they're just screwing me and don't want to take a loss by getting me the correct frame size. I measured myself on a medical scale at work and I'm 5' 11.5" to be exact, just .5" under 6'. I've been in twice to talk to them about a larger frame size, and they just assure me I'm a medium each time and kinda act insulted if I question them. Based on your user name, I'm assuming you are a nurse? I'm a medical student, and the metaphor the guy used when I said I think I need a larger frame size (maybe not assertive enough) is that customers shouldn't try to fit themselves online like patients trying to diagnose themselves from Dr. Google. They should trust the expert....meanwhile I went to other bikes shops nearby out of curiosity and they wouldn't even sell me the medium Trance 29er they had in stock because they said it was too small for me.

Evil Following or Offering.
My dad owns the Giant & the Following v1. He prefers the Following, lower center of gravity and a planted feel. The Maestro suspension is nice, but the Delta link just has something to it that makes it feel special.
I wouildn't say the Following has "old" geo seeing its the bike that changed 29ners and launched the current geo trend.
I'd go with the Offering. Pedals better than the Following and the geo is more aggressive.

Evil Following or Offering.
My dad owns the Giant & the Following v1. He prefers the Following, lower center of gravity and a planted feel. The Maestro suspension is nice, but the Delta link just has something to it that makes it feel special.
I wouildn't say the Following has "old" geo seeing its the bike that changed 29ners and launched the current geo trend.
I'd go with the Offering. Pedals better than the Following and the geo is more aggressive.

The Offering is DIALED - perfect blend of the Following and Wreckoning. I've never scrutinized sizing and geometry numbers as much as I did with this build. I have / had an XL Wreck and a month of ride time on an XL Following MB. EVIL's chart puts me on a Large Offering which would have been way to small / cramped for me.